Відео

That is what I'm thinking

According to the NTSB report (Accident No. ERA14FA417, Registration N6510A) - "The pilot and passenger seat tracks were equipped with seat stops, and displayed evidence of pullout and cracking which was consistent with the seats being in the locked position during the impact."

Thanks, man! I'm always experimenting with different techniques. I'll try it out.

Love the feedback!

It's definitely something to be aware of, especially if you're operating any kind of aircraft.

Yes, that is a fact & b/c of my own experience w/ this type of OTC Medication, I thought I should share that. I did see later in the video that they said that older folks might have the substance in their blood longer than a young person w/ a faster metabolism which was what happened to me. I think great caution should be used in driving/flying and/or in the operation of any type of machinery. You know, I laughed at the warnings of the label when I was young but this video proved those warnings are there for a good reason. peace man

Yes. An older person's liver and kidneys don't remove chemicals from the blood as quickly as when they were young.

That is a Fact; I on occasion take an over the counter sleep aid & now(62) I notice that I do not wake refreshed as I did when I used the exact brand & dose 10 yrs ago. Now I feel groggy up until 12-2PM the day after & what I believe that means is it was still in my system back then but I was able to combat this but now b/c my body can not filter it out, I am "fogged in" for half the next day. I don't fly but if I did I wouldn't ever fly on the days after I took these meds = it's just too dangerous for the passengers. If I flew alone, that might be different but not w/ other souls in my care. peace

Exactly right. The real story is how it got there.

Well no shit

I agree. I'm working on audio quality! I actually just put the same video up without the background music.

Yeah It sucks

I was thinking a little background music would make it easier to follow. I have the same video up without the background music. As for other audio quality, I have to record these on layovers so microphones and accoustics sorta suck until I get better gear. I'll try and grab a microphone.

Note to Jimmy: I'm covering a lot of people's comments with this reply. Pardon the long length. That's why this video is so interesting. The pilot was highly experienced as an instructor, aviator, taildragger pilot, etc. He knew everything we know except for persistent drugs in his body. So what in the world happened? The problem is that he was under the influence of a drug, one that he likely didn't know about (due to slower processing of certain drugs as we age). Diphenydramine not only sedates us, but it impacts our memory and some other things. After decades of flying that doesn't mean you forget how to fly, but you forget how to manage the particular flight. I doubt he'd give someone a discovery flight from the left seat, so he must have done a spur of the moment "You wanna take it?". This fits some of the effects of diphenhydramine since it not only sedates us but hits our memory. With compromised memory we're more prone to last minute changes and become a little more indecisive. The nasty thing about all of this is that these people died not due to some, glaring impropriety. A student sometimes takes a while to transfer controls. That doesn't mean they're freaking out or panicy; they're actively learning. An experienced instructor giving a student a discovery flight is normal. Even letting them "fly" during the takeoff isn't that unusual. A persistent drug took all of this normal stuff and turned the flight into a fatal mishap. It's the subtlety of changes that's striking, in my uninformed opinion.

I come from 17,000 logged hours of low altitude orientation. I can't understand the desire either to get up quickly enough altitude to kill ourselves in the stall and fall or to stay up regardless of more important things like airspeed. I understand the high altitude orientation of stall and spin recovery. I don't think these techniques had much to do with this accident or any inadvertent stall or spin too low for recovery. Startle is more defeating of the rapid transitions John Boyd was looking for in his OODA loop than was the Benadryl I think. What environment did this happen in, low or high? When I started instructing at Billy Howell's Ag Flight, he said, "show the PPL students one stall. If I see you spin with a student, you're fired." It took a minute, but we don't want to deceive Ag students. We don't want them to think being really good at practice stall and spin at altitude has anything whatsoever to do with maneuvering flight including that around the airport. Yes, he had a lot of experience. No he hadn't made hundreds of eighty degree bank angle turns at 1 g by releasing the back pressure on the stick as soon as he turns. He had low altitude experience, but didn't fully understand or at least utilize the principals of the law of the roller coaster and what the airplane wants to do. We crop dusters never pitch up without zoom reserve airspeed and we allow the nose to go down to prevent stall in all turns. It is muscle memory and startle triggers it rather than high altitude orientation.

You make some good points. I don't think the instructor pilot was on the yoke until it was too late. We know from observations that the student was likely on the yoke and, likely, the instructor was on the rudders. So it was probably the student that pitched high. And the student wasn't a pilot. He wasn't briefed (not if he's only partially on controls and in the right seat, I don't think). So the student wasn't equipped for the situation, but was similarly underequipped to detect the danger her was in. My slightly informed speculation is this: The instructor, having inadequately prepared the student is now slow to respond. The student is making typical errors but, due to the drug's effect, the instructor isn't up to managing the challenges. He's a few moments behind the flight, but he doesn't know he's a few moments behind the flight.

@@jonathanzarinnia884 You are probably right. It irritates me that we train techniques so close to this scenario. As an Ag instructor I only taught the basic level in low ground effect until obstructions require pitch up takeoff, which was exactly the same as coming out of the crop field a hundred times a day. The outcome of the maneuver was never in doubt. I only had this kind of situation once. A STOL guy came here with his powerful Maule, supposedly to learn the basic level in low ground effect takeoff technique. He pulled up so hard I thought he had busted the tailwheel spring just showing off with a crazy high pitch attitude. I had him let me out and go on down the road.

As an industry we glamorize that stuff. Even if you're doing real-world STOL there's an evaluation and planning piece with actual STOL work in remote locations that's missing from STOL competitions, etc. Nobody makes movies about Bill and Susan trying to evaluate whether they need to make another round trip in order to be light enough to clear some trees. At least not movies that sell. I'm not hating on the STOL competition community either. That stuff is really cool to watch. It's just that the audience sees the show and not the prep/consideration.

The medication affects the risk analysis and judgement. For instructors, captains, etc. this is the core of what we do. Students do what students do. Students often over-pitch as they fixate on things. This doesn't mean they freak out, but they sometimes are just trying so hard to do a great job they get in their own way. We've all been there. It's a natural part of learning. This is how the drug is so important. Diphendyramine sedates us but it also hits our memory. So not only is the otherwise excellent instructor pilot a little slower and maybe a little less perceptive; he's also going to be less decisive. That may have materialized as a last minute decision to partially transfer control to an under prepared student close to the ground.

I have aoa on the planes I fly at my day job. All information is good information so long as it helps the pilot get a more complete picture of the flight's situation. Would I spend my maintenance money on aoa or rotables? I think I get more flight safety for my dollar by more fuel, filters, oil, etc. I could be wrong.

My CFI drummed into me that the stick/yoke position is the best possible AOA indicator you can get. If its a long way back, you're in high AOA territory. If you fly the aircraft often, you will instinctively know where the straight and level position is. Anything further back than that is increasing toward full stall (all the way back).

They didn't make it. One of the reasons I focused on this accident is that there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

Glad you liked it!

Thanks, man! I appreciate the kind words and the story. For me it was half-Cubans. Stuff that was a cinch in the Decathlon was suddenly challenging even to do poorly in the Cub. Finally getting it felt awesome.

Real plane. Real me. Not CGI. Regarding the spar, the whole sequence is done at 3g or less. Regarding my experience, you can look my planes up and find me too on the FAA registry. Glad you're enjoying the videos. And if you're not comfortable doing this, don't do it.

Your comment is very funny because if you know anything about this pilot, you would know he is an expert with L3 vertex corporation, and a highly decorated combat pilot. I can personally attest this is a correct and real video and so for you to disparage the video and him shows that you’ve got 300 hours 😂

Thanks! Great discussion points! Yeah, there are definitely considerations. So really we're talking about risk. Do I perceive the risks? Do I understand them? Am I weighing them properly? Everybody who makes a fatal oversight is convinced they've covered all their bases before that last event. So I have to respect my own ability to get it wrong. I think I've mitigated and managed risk down to an acceptable level. Better aviators than me got it wrong. I may be wrong. On this note about managing risks, using the Cub is actually one of the ways I do mitigate some of these. With wood or or metal spars, across twenty thousand airframes and 80+ years there isn't much history of in flight structural failure of J-3s. Airplanes built later and certified for aerobatics, like Citabrias and Decathlons DO have a history of in flight structural failures. My particular Cub has metal spars and was restored in 2012. It had about 280 hours since restoration when I bought it. I'm convinced we've done about as much as we can to ensure we have an airframe and engine that is up to what we're doing, and one that's not hiding fatigue from some unknown history. The Cub does something else too; it allows me to suck less by flying more. I also have a real job that allows me to afford something a little bigger and a little cooler. But a plane like a Cub is cheap to own and maintain. Everything on it is common and replaceable (by aviation standards). That means we can feed a lot of fuel and oil to the plane to practice escapes, practice maneuvers, make mistakes, etc. But a lot of good, competent, dead aviators were similarly convinced. I could still be wrong. My priorities could be off. I'm not going to pound my chest on this.

Thanks, and I hope you have a great time building! Id love to see the cri cri!

Botched collections are a fantastic idea! I talk about escapes plenty too. I accidentally trashed several flights' worth of spin videos when I reformatted the wrong microsd. I was a little frustrated with myself.

I respect and enjoy the sarcasm. I'll answer matter of factly, though. To your point, there ARE maneuvers I won't attempt in the Cub. Stuff that requires negative G or snap maneuvers, for example. There are limits based on risk, equipment and budget.

@@jonathanzarinnia884 Ah, now, that wasn't sarcasm. Good sarcasm attacks. That was more like speaking tongue-in-cheek. However, since you do seem amenable to answering comments, and knowledgeable on the topic: What can you tell us about outside loops performed by acft not specifically designed for aerobatics? Are you aware of any that can do so? I'm talking about the full-on, nose over from the top and do a complete loop kind.

@@innocentbystander3798 Decathlons and better can do it. Planes not designed or modified for this stuff will struggle to get fuel and oil to the motor. General aviation airfoils are designed to be good at lifting in the positive direction, and that makes the really inefficient at negative G. So it takes a lot of energy with the "wrong" wing. That means the plane gets draggy and you fall out of it. General aviation planes are strong in positive G and kind of weak in negative G too. But can it be done? Yes. It it physically possible. Probably not a smart thing to do, though.

Sounds like your dad is pretty cool!

This is awesome question. Best rate of climb is where the plane has the most surplus power. In props and jets that's going to be faster than Vld. Best angle is where the plane has the most surplus thrust. In props that's slower. In jets best angle of climb is nearly the same as best glide. Minimum sink is where the least power is required, slower than best glide. Best angle of glide is where the plane has the most lift compared to drag. At best glide speed. Rates are dependent on surplus or deficits in power. Angles are dependent on surplus or deficits in thrust. Power looks at forces over distance and time, so think force and speed. Thrust just looks at straight pounds of thrust and pounds of drag.

@@jonathanzarinnia884 Thanks! Great discussion. This is the level of detail that's great to find in aviation YT. I think I understand what's going on. There are two slightly different perspectives how the power curve applies to real engines and props, which are dependent on airspeed. 1. The traditional approach (which I believe is exemplified by the Navy book you referenced) is to build the power curve based on lift and drag performance. This involves determining the sum of the effects of induced and parasitic drag components, which can be summarized in a "power required" curve, which is the amount of power that the aircraft would have to provide at various airspeeds in order to remain level. This curve will necessarily be convex and have a minimum point, which corresponds to the best ratio of lift to drag, and we call the associated airspeed V_ld(max). However, this is only a true minimum point in the case that the same power can be provided at all airspeeds. This is true at idle, so this works for determining V_minsink, since the engine and prop are not contributing anyway. But at any non-zero thrust level, the fact that power is a function of airspeed means that the min point as per V_ld(max) won't correspond to an optimal airspeed for climb. 2. The other approach, which I'm calling the Denker approach (since it's what's used in See How It Flies), is to flip the "power required" curve into a "power available" curve, which looks similar but it's upside-down. But more importantly, Denker factors the performance of the engine and the prop into the power available curve, so at non-idle power, the curve represents the surplus or deficit at power across a range of airspeeds in that configuration which includes the position of the throttle (and prop pitch, etc.), and not solely aerodynamic effects. This curve does factor in the engine, and so it's maximum point would differ from V_ld(max). This is what Denker is calling Vy. The question is what are the characteristics of this portion of the power curve, between Vy at a given thrust, and V_ld(max)? (I recognize that this region is likely to be only a couple of knots in the kinds of airplanes that we fly, but it's still an interesting discussion point.) If I'm at V_y, and i begin to pitch up, I'm not able to hold altitude as well, so it feels to me like the back-side of the power curve. Whether that effect is due to loss of aerodynamic efficiency or due to the ineffectiveness of the powerplant, I'm not sure it matters as a pilot. Does anything interesting happen when you cross V_ld(max) one way or the other?

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks! That really keeps me motivated!

Love the Citabrias!

Clip wings are really nice.

Yes I can. I've been working an a video analyzing loss of control but I'm struggling to do it justice. A slip video would be a great project!

That's a great question! It's one I've been waiting for. Pardon the long reply, because I have a bunch of points teed up. It's not Utility Class. It's also not Normal, Restricted, Aerobatic or any other class. The Piper J-3C is certified under CAR 4 before those classes were a thing. The TCDS if I recall is A691. If someone has a PA-12 or PA-18 then these would be a no-no. That said there are maneuvers I won't do in the J-3. Negative G and snap-maneuvers, for example. Negative G are tough on the motor. Snaps are hard on the empennage. I also increase the maintenance interval on attach hardware, etc. The Cub makes primary aerobatics accessible on a tight budget, and I think that does a lot to improve our collective airmanship when access even to Citabrias let alone Pitts may be prohibitively costly. That said people CAN get the wrong ideas from these videos and start looping their 172s and Cherokees. I'm NOT about to support that nonsense. On the balance of things I think we, collectively, suffer more from atrophy in our airmanship than we do from pushing too hard. That said we can't talk about exploring an airplane's envelope without discussing practical and legal limitations around us. Great question! Keep 'em coming!

Thanks! 👍

Thank you! It's an excuse to doodle on my phone.

We have the same year Cubs! Also with metal spars. If you haven't taken a basic aerobatics course, get a few hours in with an instructor. Once that's done I hope you have a good time looping your Cub! It's pretty gentle and a hoot to boot.

Glad you enjoyed the video. More to come. When it comes to definitions I'm using American IAC definitions, and the half Cuban Eight is one of the maneuvers. To your point hower, there are things on this maneuver which would not cut it in a competion environment. We aren't holding a 45 downline while we roll back to level. Our loops aren't round. Etc. These are some of the compromises to keep oil pressure up among other things. Always good to talk with someone who's direct. Keep it coming.

@jonathanzarinnia884 Thanks ! No worries... (This grew to be longer than expected..., maybe get a coffee and prepare to enjoy the journey ?). I was a sort of autodidactic (Dunning Kreuger Effect driven ?) Aeroplane Freak who got into very early Ultralights - in fact they were still called "Minimum Aircraft" as a teenager..., in 1978. Later I worked for Sportair Aviation at Bankstown, Sydney, me being the Aircraft Detailer on 2nd-hand machines, and Assembler on new units, coming to us in Shipping Containers, or being ferried over the Pacific & needing the Ferry-Tanks removed, Seats put back in, and all the Oz Airworthiness Corrective Modifications made to meet our Safety Standards (things like fireproofing the Fuel Lines Firewall-forward...). As well as undercutting the Authorised Dealerships by direct importing Cessnas from the Factory and not having to provide Warranty (!), my Boss legitimately had the Oz Agency for Bellanca and Pitts... So, back in the day I met a retired Wing Commander RAAF who dropped in with his Pitts S-2a, and then a year later we met again when I was a Student Nurse hanging out at the Tamworth Aero Club on a Saturday morning - they'd called him in to run 30 minute "Aerobatic Trial Instruction" flights ; so I produced my Helmet & Goggles from my car's glovebox and in 2 days I racked up 2 hours & 4 landings. As a diligent little Biggles Freak, I'd read what I could, and I was doing OK with Loops & Snap Rolls, but when asked to try a "Cuban-8" I didn't know what that was.... In Oz I'd never heard of the manoeuvre, growing up - sort of the Olde Colonial Blackwater effect, and the happenings at International Aerobatics Competitions post WW-2 simply never penetrated this far down the pipeline. After the explanation I sort of came up to speed on it, but I enjoyed Stall Turns more - sufficient time to admire the view while going up/down in a straight line, perhaps... A year after that I spent a fortnight of my first-year holidays camping in a Caravan at the Narromine Soaring Centre, soloing on day 4 of their 5 day Ab-Initio course in a Blanik L-13, then having a second week converting onto and being let loose, soaring in an IS-28. My final solo in a Sailplane was 2 Hrs: 13 min., bringing my total time to 15 hrs: 10. Ten years later, groundbound all the time, after buying an unfinished, partly botched Scratch built Plans-up project..., redesigned & rebuilt big chunks of it, and designed & carved my idea of a Propeller for it ; it took me for it's Maiden First Fright in a New Prototype... A lot of people had misgivings - and ultimately they were n't entirely wrong ; in that after staying strictly in Test Pilot mode for the first 5 hours ; then I went flying in-company with a more experienced pilot whose machine (the first Prototype Bailey-Moyes Dragonfly - designed for Aerotowing Rogallo Hang Gliders) climbed literally 5 times better than my machine, a video of which can be found in my "Personal Aeroplanology"... Playlist, titled, "The 22-Hp, VJ-24w...; World's 1st Ultralight Motor-Glider...!". The Aeroplane did not want to go there, and it took me three attempts to land in the 200 yard Paddock selected, following Old Mate down and in ; landing in the Village of Red Range to have Coffee in my home with the Wife & Kids, in full Bigglesworth mode..., Ultralights out on an Excursion, kinda thing. Then, stupidly, I allowed myself to be talked into a downwind takeoff - when the actually correct answer was to have taken the Wings off, lifted it over the Fence and trailered it back to the Airstrip. So, we broke each other...; hitting the Fence and going over it Inverted, before landing in the Potato-Patch. The Jensen is still unrepaired, in it's Trailer, 25 yards away ; because I haven't been sufficiently rich, or bored, to get myself motivated to rebuild my second Aeroplane - the first one may be viewed on the Tubes (or if you're really keen, you can make the pilgrimage to visit it in person...), by searching YT or my Aeroplanology Playlist for it. Most recently, about 2 & 1/2 years ago I posted, " National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!" And there's a truly Potato-Cam. standard 13 year-old effort titled, ponderously..., "The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft"... I was it's third owner, and when it took me for my First Solo flights, up and down the Runway at Olde Bowral Airfield, it was making it's last Flights - and I didn't ever break it, so therefore it survived to be chained up. Revered for it's absolute Purist Minimalism. The Wright Brothers had a better Aeroplane in 1903. They had a 4-cylinder, 12.5 Hp 4-stroke Engine, reduction-driving two big Contra-Rotating Propellers to eliminate P-Factor..., they had Double-Surface Aerofoils - with Ribs & Spars inside their Wings..., and they had 3-Axis Controls - featuring Wing-Warping.... The 3rd Pre-production Mk-1 Scout has a single-cylinder 8 Hp motor, with one Chain reduction-driven Propeller for lots of P-Factor..., it has Single-Surface Aerofoils - Dacron in Tension with a Bolt-Rope hemmed to anchor the Leading-Edge in the Sail-Track of the extruded Boat-Masts which served as Leading-Edge Spars, and Cambered Aluminium "Slats" sewn unto Chordwise Pockets on the Wings..., and it has lots of Dihedral with a High-Wing layout, and all-flying Stabilators with a Finless Rudder - both actuated by the Joystick. The Throttle and Ignition Switch completed the Cockpit furniture, the Fuel Shutoff-Tap was under the Fueltank, operable only when standing beside the stationary machine. They didn't begin putting Wing-Warping on Skycraft Scouts until the advent of the Mk-3 in 1982...; with either the 18 hp Fuji-Robin or a 35-hp Rotax-377. When a friend of mine spun in, in his 35-hp Mk-3 Scout, in 1995..., I bought the Engine from his Estate ; and I originally thought to put that onto a rebuilt Jensen..., but I'm a bit of an Activist Greenie, too, y' see. Somehow I couldn't work up much enthusiasm to rebuild my Ankle-breaking Levitation-Machine, merely to be able to climb up into the Sky to fart CO-2 while making slow-moving Lawnmower-Noises, so as to look down on all my neighbours...., kinda thing. Being fair, I do live atop a Ridge in the Forest, and my Doorstep is vertically superior to every Rooftop within 15 km in all directions ; so I can already look down on my neighbours' places, while slowly collecting the materials with which to restore the Jensen if so inclined. And, guess who's now logged 2,493 Km on a Road-Registered Electric Motorcycle, which I recharge via my Off-Grid Stand-alone Solar System. A spare 6,000 Watt Motor, with a Speed-Controller & Gearbox is only $1,500, and a spare 2.3 Kw/Hr Battery would be another $2,500...; and the ESC has 4 levels of Regenerative Braking. I visualise an 8-ft diameter Propeller at 1,125 RPM, to engage 4 times the Disc-Area, with vastly better "engagement" with the Air-Column - and the same Tip-speed as a 42" Toothpick cutting a loud little Hole in the Sky at 4,200 RPM, and making 132 lbs of "Residual Thrust" (lol) with it's Cooling-Fan. An Electric Ultralight Motor-Glider, running on Solar Power, able to go up to 11,000 ft, and then come back down at 500 ft/min and 50 mph, at Level 4 Regenerative Braking, and operating as a 450-pound Free-Flying Electric Wind-Turbine - recharging the Battery for a possible Go-around after any Missed Approach.... Now, THAT is deeply tempting to me - I could be the Solar-Electric equivalent of the Mad-Max Gyro-Kapitan, silently wafting around, looking down on the Collapsing of Civilisation...(!). However, sadly, the Beaurocrats repealed Air Navigation Order 95.10 about a decade ago, while I was looking the other way. If I rebuild the Jensen to fly on Renewable Power, then I have to go the full Outlaw-mode ; but my Pop-Rivetry is Aluminium, and RADAR exists, and I reckon the RAAF's F-35s will come hunting me if I try to fly - any time before they run out of Kerosene for their Fire-farting Sky-Chariots. And, by that stage, the motorbike will be more use to me than an Electric Ultralight Motor-Glider. But, it's a very nice style of a Daydream. To share the view, look in my Videos about a fortnight ago for a Chest-Camera facilitated Rideabout-Talkabout, titled, "Electric Motorcycling, Into The Trumpocalypse...; Accelerationism Now In Control...?". Food for thought, perhaps ; especially for you - over there in the middle of the approaching Muddle, so to speak. Another option..., 8 of my 23 Playlists are Wildlife Encounters, sorted by Species ; so one can spend many hours entranced by the wild unfenced Kangaros & Wallabies & Possums & Birds who all consider me to be their Family's pet Tame Human. I've been paying Council Rates on the hundred acre Endangered Species Sanctuary, within which I live, for 34 years at this point ; so I even understand and "speak" a little bit of Marsupial Body-Language and Gesture, and Vocalisation... Someone has to do it. Such is life, Live a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !